Should public libraries start adding console games to their collections?

[jthwilliams]

So, someone was asking a question about why used games sales are any different than used record sales or used book sales and it struck me. Not only is there no difference between used game sales and any other entertainment media used sales, but I can?t think of any reason why games aren?t subject to the same IP and copyright exceptions that allow public lending libraries to distribute copies temporarily for free. So I?m asking;
1. Do you think libraries should lend computer and console games?
2. If not, can you provide a reason why a video game is unlike a movie, audiobook, record, book or other material that libraries currently do lend?

 

[jthwilliams]

Oh and to add a few things first.

1. movies, books and audiobooks all have sales
2. They all get pirated (movies and music are arguably more pirated than computer games)
3. They all compete with the commerical efforts
4. Libraries are exempt from standart IP and copyright concerns for all of the above
5. My library lets me download audiobooks and ebooks so digitial distribution already happens

and before anyone says that games are luxeries or only for entertainment. The same can be said for most fiction books, movies, audiobooks, etc.

 

[Gasaraki]

Mine already does, so I don't see why not.

 

[jthwilliams]

Mine already does, so I don't see why not.

Really? Where do you live? I'm in seattle and my library is very cool (like I said they have the ebooks and audiobooks and some movies via digital distribution) but they definately don't have games, pc or console.

That or I've just somehow missed it

 

[Alilacia]

They don't where I live but my boyfriend's library does. We take out games all the time when I'm visiting.

 

[jthwilliams]

I shall only answer your second question. The main difference between movies, books, cds, and games is that games do not have lasting appeal. All of the other products have a much longer shelf life then video games. Games are generally only good for a few years before nobody wants them and they become worthless. This means that it is very hard for libraries to keep up to date and still make their money back.

I challenge this for 5 reasons:
1. I still play evil genious, mirrowind, oblivion, Space Quest, Kings Quest, and a bunch of other really old games
2. If this was true GOG would have failed however they seem to be doing quite well selling really old games
3. Lots of companies remake old games and sell them but just updaing the graphics ( and do quite well doing it)
4. I've read lots of books and watched lots of movies that I will never read or watch again.

Please respond.

*EDIT* somewhere between thinking and typing I lost the 5th reason, but it was probably something like lot libraries don't try to make money at least not in the USA.

 

[HazzaH]

The library I work for has shitloads of console games. Not at my branch though, you have to order them in.

The main difference between movies, books, cds, and games is that games do not have lasting appeal. All of the other products have a much longer shelf life then video games.

I don't claim to speak for everyone here, but there are relatively few books I've picked up where I would want to read them again. Same with movies I've watched. Many people I know who buy books only read them once. The idea of the library is that you bring the book/game/movie/cd back so the next person can use it, and so on.

Games are generally only good for a few years before nobody wants them and they become worthless. This means that it is very hard for libraries to keep up to date and still make their money back.

Public libraries usually get their money from the government, so money shouldn't be an issue. Also, our library charges $5.00 to take the game out for 2 weeks, but I'm pretty sure that's more insurance than anything else - replacement charges are expensive, and the people that wreck our stuff never want to pay up.

From the library's standpoint though, the biggest pain in the ass about having anything on CD or DVD is that two months after we get it, we have to send it for sanding or replacement because some fool has scratched the thing. And whoever happens to be on a certain shift at a certain time gets the fun job of wiping greasy KFC fingerprints off them. Ugh.

 

[Gasaraki]

Mine already does, so I don't see why not.

Really? Where do you live? I'm in seattle and my library is very cool (like I said they have the ebooks and audiobooks and some movies via digital distribution) but they definately don't have games, pc or console.

That or I've just somehow missed it

Ottawa, Canada.
http://ottawa.bibliocommons.com/item/show/587510026_super_street_fighter_iv

 

[jthwilliams]

I challenge this for 5 reasons:
1. I still play evil genious, mirrowind, oblivion, Space Quest, Kings Quest, and a bunch of other really old games
2. If this was true GOG would have failed however they seem to be doing quite well selling really old games
3. Lots of companies remake old games and sell them but just updaing the graphics ( and do quite well doing it)
4. I've read lots of books and watched lots of movies that I will never read or watch again.

Please respond.

*EDIT* somewhere between thinking and typing I lost the 5th reason, but it was probably something like lot libraries don't try to make money at least not in the USA.

1. You mention some very few select older games. The vast majority of games do not last the years.
2. Again they only sell a very small percentage of older games. They pick and choose the ones that were very popular to make sure they get their money back.
3. I am not sure what this has to do with anything. Those old games are being remade and being released on current systems.
4. This point is also not relevent.

5. Although while they are not in the business to make money they do have limited budgets. This means that they will not waste money on entertainment like games or movies unless they believe that they can get their money back on them.

1. Right but the same thing is true about books, audiobooks and movies. Only a few of them retain any popularity longer than 3 years or so.

2. See 1. It doesn't make it differnt from books, audiobooks, or movies

3. I meant it to show like books and movies some games retain value for a very long time, enough so that just making them run on a modern system is enough to get people to shell out $30-60 on top of what they've already paid for the experience just to have the experience again. This happens with really good/popular movies to. I point to star wars which has been released on VHS, Betamax, Lazer Disc, DVD, Blueray, and possible more and I'm sure there are people who have bought every rerelease

4. My point was that books and movies are just as transient as games. The vast majority looses any value it had even a year or 3 later. Movies are even more so and like games the technology for making movies is constantly evolving and movies that aren't remade can be lost on betamax or just be reviewed* by the one or two people who really loved the crappy CGI and black and white.

5. I'm not sure how libraries make money on anything popular or not. If you changed this to them wanting to get value out of something, it at least becomes more valid, but even then libaries famously want to try to have as a complete collection as they can not just the popular stuff. Their point is to serve all not just he majority.

*EDIT*

*by reviewed I mean viewed again not reviewed as it is normally used.

 

[HazzaH]

EDIT: Whoopsie daisies, I must have clicked a button somewhere. Can I delete this?

 

[HazzaH]

A book that came out ten or twenty years ago still gets read regularily, a game that game out ten or twenty years ago not so much. Especially since very few people would actually have a system that could play them.

Ok, I can see your point, but the idea that this will somehow make it more 'worthwhile' for the library doesn't make sense to me.

Do you really think that a copy of a book will stay in the library for 20 years? It will get replaced and a newer edition will be re-bought, so it's no different from the 5-year old game that nobody plays any more, except that they just won't re-buy the game. Money-wise there's no real advantage that books have over games. Especially because libraries don't charge people to take books out.

I point to star wars which has been released on VHS, Betamax, Lazer Disc, DVD, Blueray, and possible more and I'm sure there are people who have bought every rerelease

There we go - this guy has the right idea. In 5 years time, let's assume we're all upgrading to blu-ray. Digital formats only last for a certain time, but chances are a DVD won't last until even then, so hey, no biggie, we just re-buy the thing.

Although while libraries are not in the business to make money they do have limited budgets. This means that they will not waste money on entertainment like games or movies unless they believe that they can get their money back on them.

Books are extremely expensive, especially in New Zealand where we get ripped off on them like no-one's business.

Let's say a library buys a $50.00 book - an encyclopaedia of dinosaurs or something. Now let's say the library also buys a $50.00 game.

The game sits in the collection for 6 months, is played by 6 different people, who each paid $5.00. (so the library 'made back' $30.00, right? Nowhere near the full price of the game.) Then no one ever touches it again.
The book also sits in the collection for 6 months, and is read by 20 different kids, and got wrecked and has to be re-bought.

The library wouldn't consider either of these purchases a waste of money, because that's what the library is there for. The money doesn't even come into it.

Let me try putting this a different way. The collections people (who buy items for the library) base their purchases on the gaps in the collection, they don't think so much about 'will this thing be still used in 5 years' time?', because chances are the item WON'T be in the library in 5 years' time, unless it's, say, a world atlas or something published by a local author.

If you want lastability and money-saving, go to the National Library. They don't buy ANYTHING.

I'm not sure how libraries make money on anything popular or not. If you changed this to them wanting to get value out of something, it at least becomes more valid, but even then libaries famously want to try to have as a complete collection as they can not just the popular stuff. Their point is to serve all not just he majority.

THANK YOU.

Truth is, we DON'T make money on anything popular, think about the book 'Twilight'. We must have bought a mountain of copies of that book, and eventually they've all gotten tatty and worn out, and needed to be replaced. We don't think of it in terms of lost money, we just accept that it's popular and get on with it.

What is the whole obsession with libraries making money from everything it lends out? Money-making is not, never has been, and never will be a priority of a public library. It makes me cross when people imply that it is.

 

[jthwilliams]

I'm not sure how libraries make money on anything popular or not. If you changed this to them wanting to get value out of something, it at least becomes more valid, but even then libaries famously want to try to have as a complete collection as they can not just the popular stuff. Their point is to serve all not just he majority.

THANK YOU.

Glad I made you happy and thank you for working in a industry that provides a real and valuable public service and is nortiously under paid and under apperciated. Librarians and Teachers always seem to get the raw end of things.

 

[HazzaH]

I'm not sure how libraries make money on anything popular or not. If you changed this to them wanting to get value out of something, it at least becomes more valid, but even then libaries famously want to try to have as a complete collection as they can not just the popular stuff. Their point is to serve all not just he majority.

THANK YOU.

Glad I made you happy and thank you for working in a industry that provides a real and valuable public service and is nortiously under paid and under apperciated. Librarians and Teachers always seem to get the raw end of things.

Ha, that's awesome, I'm not even a real librarian, I'm just a customer service drone - but nice to know we're appreciated. =)

 

[AD-Stu]

Public libraries loaning console games is pretty common in Australia FWIW. Some have restrictions on the kind of games they'll offer (eg: they won't carry anything that's MA15+) but they also have similar restrictions on DVDs and other materials so it's not really a big deal.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

As an aspiring library technician myself I fully support this. Books on tape and movies are loaned audio/visual materials, and is not the main shared purpose of all fiction to entertain?

Given the large library of games however, it would be prudent to carry only those which are recognized as classics (previous generation or earlier) and can be physically moved out and returned to start with. Funding would also be difficult to get ahold of for breaking into a brand new medium, so to begin with a library would be dependent on donations (not as slim a field as you might think, my local library gets about 20 old books donated a week, and games don't have to be 'restored' before being put on the shelf).

Who knows? Twenty years down the line as/if gaming becomes more accepted as an art form we just might see it. I hope to see that day.

 

[HazzaH]

Given the large library of games however, it would be prudent to carry only those which are recognized as classics (previous generation or earlier) and can be physically moved out and returned to start with.

That's a terrible idea. If Libraries only carried books that were classics, not only would they hardly ever get read, but there'd be a terrible scandal over what was deemed 'classics' and what wasn't. (Who wants to read Catcher in the Rye anyway?)
Not sure where you live, but your country's equivalent of LIANZA would have a fit if they heard someone talking about picking and choosing what to make available to people.

Sorry, I'll stop taking this discussion too seriously in 3...2...1...